European Journal of Educational Research

European Journal of Educational Research Volume 5, Issue 3, 109 - 123. ISSN: 2165-8714 http://www.eu-jer.com/

The Effect of Performance Feedback Provided to Student-Teachers Working with Multiple Disabilities Pınar SAFAK*

Gazi University, TURKEY

Hatice Cansu YILMAZ


Pinar DEMIRYUREK


Mustafa DOGUS


Abstract: The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of performance feedback (PF) provided to student teachers working with students with multiple disabilities and visual impairment (MDVI) on their teaching skills. The study group of the research was composed of 11 student teachers attending to the final year of the Teaching Students with Visual Impairments Program at a university in Ankara, Turkey. A quasi-experimental design, was used in the study. These student teachers recorded their classes for pretest and posttest and these video-recorded classes were thereafter watched by the observer, who completed semi-structured observation forms for each student teacher. The results of the analysis suggested a statistically significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the student teachers involved in the study before and after the performance feedback. The findings of the study were discussed in the light of the relevant literature and practical recommendations were included. Keywords: Severe disability, multiple disability, student teacher, performance feedback To cite this article: Safak, P, Yilmaz, H. C., Demiryurek, P., & Dogus, M. (2016). The effect of performance feedback provided to studentteachers working with multiple disabilities. European Journal of Educational Research, 5(3), 109-123. doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.5.3.109

Introduction The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps (TASH), a civil rights organization, defines the ‘individuals affected by severe disabilities’ as individuals of all ages, who are in need of extensive and continuous assistance in more than one basic life activity, so as to keep up with the life quality of individuals, who haven’t been or less affected by disabilities (Collins, 2007; Safak, 2013; Turnbull, Turnbull, Shank & Smith; 2004). Westling & Fox (2009) describe multiple disabilities as a condition under severe disability. Individuals affected by multiple disabilities are those who have been affected by more than one type of disability and who cannot benefit from programs intended for a single disability (Safak, 2013). Individuals with vision impairment and additional disabilities are also included in severe and multiple deficiencies classification. Many resources that provide a definition for multiple disabilities suggest that individuals cannot be placed in special education programs prepared for a single disability and such individuals would need specially trained personnel, adapted programs and/or instructional materials to achieve success (IDEA, 2011; Ozyurek, 1987). This indicates that teachers, who are to work with individuals with multiple and severe disabilities should be specially educated. ______________________ * Corresponding author: Pinar SAFAK, Gazi University Special Education Department, Ankara, Turkey E-mail: [email protected]

A good teaching program should not only aim to equip the student teachers with required skills and knowledge, but also ensure that student teachers are able to present such knowledge and skills the best (Dayi, 2011; Gleason & Hall 1991; O’Reilly, 1992; Ozyurek, 2008). While working in a real classroom environment, student teachers gain experience in the development of appropriate classes and materials, management of classroom behaviors, and teaching. Such experiences allow them to apply the teaching skills acquired during university education to real classrooms efficiently and thoroughly (Darling Hammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust, & Shulman, 2005). However, the processes by which teaching programs enable the student teachers acquire the required experience are different from each other in many ways. In general, student teachers are provided with support and feedback in collaboration with classroom teachers and university advisors so as to ensure that they achieve success in their respective branches (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; Ozyurek, 2008). Feedback involves statements as regards the student’s learning level compared to intended level, what has to be learned further, and what and how the student can make use of to make up incomplete learning (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2000). It has been suggested that feedback would be more practical if the same has been provided

110  SAFAK, YILMAZ, DEMIRYUREK, & DOGUS / The Effect of Performance Feedback in the light of the goals and results previously conceived by the student, focused only on a few significant aspects of performance, and accompanied with specific information that could be used to improve a student teacher’s comprehension and improve the future performance (Dayi, 2011; Toro-Zambrana, 1996). Van Houten (1980) introduces three attributes of feedback: nature of feedback, temporal dimensions of feedback, and by whom it is given (Akalin & Sucuoglu, 2015; Scheeler, Ruhl & McAfee, 2004). The first attribute of feedback, in other words the nature of feedback means the content of the feedback or how feedback is given and it is classified as corrective or non-corrective, general, positive, or private (Akalin, 2014; Akalin & Sucuoglu, 2015; Devrim-Dayi & Ozyurek, 2011; Tekin-Iftar & Kircali-Iftar, 2001; Scheeler et al., 2004). While corrective feedback requires providing tips in accordance with the essence of the error, non-corrective feedback does not regard the essence of the error. General feedback is the type of feedback, by which what’s wrong or right as regards the desired skill is expressed without providing a description of the response. Positive feedback is a rewarding feedback as a result of a certain behavior. Descriptive feedback is to provide information as regards specified behaviors (Akalin & Sucuoglu, 2015; Dayi, 2011). Feedback for positive responses should be reinforced and intended for approval, whereas feedback for wrong responses should be corrective and can simply be provided by the advisor telling the individual that the relevant behavior is wrong (Tekin-Iftar & Kircali-Iftar, 2001). The second attribute of feedback is the timing and frequency of them. Feedbacks can be given face to face or remotely via the internet. Furthermore, feedback can also be given upon post-observation assessment of such materials as voice and video recordings made during observation. Besides, advisors may use a checklist during the observation or make recordings of an anecdote and they may give feedback upon these records (Akalin & Sucuoglu, 2015; Scheeler et al., 2004). Feedback can be given verbally by immediately interrupting the lecture of the student teacher or given in the form of delayed feedback based on records made during the observation within one or two days subsequent to the observation (Dayi, 2011; Scheeler et al., 2004; Solomon, Klein & Politylo, 2012). Immediate feedback prevents the errors of student teachers during practice and allows immediate reinforcement. Individuals that give feedback constitute the third attribute of feedback. These people include teachers in charge of the practice, advisors from university, or peers (Akalin & Sucuoglu, 2015; Dayi, 2011). Performance feedback (PF) is defined as monitoring the focus behavior of concern and providing the individuals with feedback on this behavior (Noell et al., 2005). As a matter of fact, feedback is one of the methods by which teachers acquire teaching skills and apply what they

have learned in their classrooms (Akalin, 2014). Recent studies focused on PF so as to enhance student teachers’ teaching skills (Akalin & Sucuoglu, 2015; Codding, Livanis, Pace & Vaca, 2008; DiGennaro-Reed, Codding, Catania & Maguire, 2010; Fallon, Collier-Meek, Maggin, Sanetti & Johnson, 2015; Gilbertson, Witt, LaFleur Singletary & VanDerHeyden, 2007; McKenney, Waldron & Conroy, 2013; Solomon et al., 2012). A review of literature provides that PF is utilized in special education programs as well as the general education. Ingham and Greer (1992) indicate that joint use of the observation process, the “Teacher Performance Rate and Accuracy” (TPRA), and feedback during student teachers’ work with students with disabilities was effective in increasing the right response rates of the students and improving the acquisition and generalization of teaching skills in student teachers. Toro-Zambrana (1996) investigated the effectiveness of using a program manual as prompt in a teaching program at Purdue University intended for students with severe disabilities, providing the student teacher with written, verbal, and approval feedback during the practice, and conducting discussion of questions or problems regarding what has been done during the practice. As a result, they found that these were effective in student teachers’ use of teaching methods, preparation of a teaching plan, and selfcriticism concerning their teaching. DiGennaro-Reed et al. (2010) found in a study with multiple baseline design across subjects consisting teachers that individualized video modeling was effective and addition of verbal PF increased treatment integrity to 100% for all participants. Fallon, et al. (2015) reviewed the studies, which employed PF as a strategy to increase schoolbased practices, and investigated whether PF was an evidence-based practice. Their findings suggested that PF could be considered an evidence-based intervention based on the criteria as set by What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). There is a recent increase in the number of relevant studies in Turkey (Akalin & Sucuoglu, 2015; Erbas & Yucesoy, 2002; Devrim-Dayi & Ozyurek, 2011; Gurgur, 2013; Gurgur, 2015; Timucin, 2008; Vuran, Ergenekon & Unlu, 2014). Erbas & Yucesoy (2002) compared effectiveness of delivering immediate and delayed feedback methods in acquisition of use of prompts and reinforcements by student teachers and concluded that immediate feedback was more effective compared to the delayed feedback. In a study by Dayi (2011), which compared the effectiveness of teaching based on delivering prompts and feedbacks to delivering only feedbacks in acquisition of teaching skills of student teachers who will work with mentally disabilities lecturing and preparing a teaching plan. It was found that there was a difference in favor of teaching based on delivering prompts and feedback. Gurgur (2013) emphasized in a qualitative study based on a selfassessment approach that support through collaboration, continuous monitoring, feedback-based

European Journal of Educational Research 111 monitoring, flexibility, raising awareness through rich experiences, and the realization of projective and balanced learning were the prominent attributes of teacher education process. Akalin & Sucugolu (2014) briefed teachers having students with special needs in their classroom on classroom management, PF and graphical analysis and then obtained video recordings from the teachers for the purpose of assessment. The practice was continued through delivering daily PF based on the recordings. As a result of the study, it was concluded that PF had positive effects on class management skills.

Application Consultants

The relevant literature includes studies that investigated the acquisition of teaching skills through PF in special education. Most of such studies focused on teachers or student teachers of students with a single disability. Although, there are international studies conducted with teachers of students with severe or multiple disabilities (Inham&Greer, 1992; ToroZambrana, 1996; DiGennaro, Martens & Kleinmann, 2007), no similar study has been conducted in Turkey.

Research Model

The present study was conducted with student teachers of students with multiple disabilities and visual impairment (MDVI). The general aim of the study was to assess the effect of PF provided to the student teachers working with students with MDVI on their teaching skills. The study is considered important for its emphasis on the significance of students with MDVI and their education, as well as raising teachers to work with them. Methodology Participants The study group of the research was comprised of all female 11 student teachers, voluntarily participated in the study and attending to the final year of a university in Ankara, Turkey. These student teachers attended and successfully achieved Mathematics, Social sciences, Turkish, and Science courses during the license program. In addition, they also successfully achieved branch courses such as Special education methods, Material development, Classroom management, Principles and methods of education and the Education of students with multiple and severe disabilities. Student teachers opted for engaging in practices themselves in the classroom of students with MDVI and attended these classes in both semesters. The students within the scope of the research whose ages range between 6- 14 have MDVI. In a classroom of 4 or 5 people, the verbal language abilities of at least one students are limited or do not develop. They can communicate with gestures and/or sign language. In the scope of the study the data is collected from 11 different classrooms that include 11 different student teachers.

The field of all researchers of this study is special education. All of the PFs are given by the advisor of the study who is the primary researcher. The advisor of study has been working as an advisor for teaching in visually impaired for 25 years. Furthermore, she has been working as an advisor for teaching the students with MDVI for 7 years. The second researcher who watches all of the videos for the observer reliability has been working as an advisor for teaching the students with MDVI for 3 years.

The design of the present study was based on a single group, a quasi-experimental design (Karasar, 2013). The premise of the model was that the difference between the pretest and posttest scores, in favor of the latter, would be associated with the independent variable (Karasar, 2013). Whether the experimented variable was effective could be investigated by testing the significance of the difference in the mean scores of the pretest and posttest. The dependent variable of the study was teaching skills and the independent variable was the PF provided to the student teachers. Data Collection Tool The study data was collected upon observations of video recordings made in natural environment. The semistructured Teaching Skills Observation Form (TSOF) was developed to assess the observations. Development of Teaching Skills Observation Form Development and application of the semi-structured observation form followed the steps involved in the semi-structured observation forms. These forms are composed of two sections. While one section is similar to a systematic observation form, the other is unstructured. The data collected via such observation forms are compliant with the nature of special case studies (Gokdere, 2015). The researchers first conducted a review on the relevant literature and examined the sample observation forms (Louisiana Components of Effective Teaching, 1992; Picard, 2004; Weber, 2004) during the development phase of the TSOF intended to investigate the effect of PF provided to student teachers with students with MDVI on their teaching skills. Having introduced the items of the observation form in the light of the sample forms, the researchers described each item in detail so as to ensure harmony between the observers.

112  SAFAK, YILMAZ, DEMIRYUREK, & DOGUS / The Effect of Performance Feedback Table 1. Experimental Design Employed in the Study The Experiment Pretest The Experiment Posttest The student teacher gives the video records which are prepared without taking any feedback to the primary advisor of study. The advisor of study watches the videos of each teacher candidate and fills the TSOF. The advisor gives feedbacks to the student teacher over their own TSOF.

The videos recorded after the feedbacks taken from the first videos are watched by the primary advisor. The TSOF is prepared for each student teacher.

Expert opinion regarding the clarity of the descriptions provided in the form and the scope and face validity was obtained from two measurement and evaluation experts, and expert opinion concerning the appropriateness of item contents was obtained from two special education experts. The form was finalized upon the reviews in line with the experts’ opinions.

at all or done incorrectly, oral feedback was given by explaining how to include them in teaching process. Then, the preparation and presentation of a second lecture was demanded in line with these feedbacks from student teachers.

Form 1: Teaching Skills Observation Form (TSOF)

The data was checked for normal distribution prior to the analysis of the data collected during the experimental study. Shapiro-Wilk test was used to test the normal distribution of the data since the sample was smaller than 50 (Buyukozturk, 2012). When the significance levels (p) obtained for the Shapiro – Wilk test provided for the dependent variables examined that the p value of the distribution in the first group was lower than 0.05 and higher than 0.5 in the second group, suggesting that there was normal distribution in the first group and non-normal distribution in the second group. Due to the difference regarding the normal distribution, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test, a nonparametric counterpart of the t-test, was decided to be used (Balci, 2007; Buyukozturk, 2012). SPSS 21.0 statistical software was used in the analysis of the data (Table 2)

Data Collection In the present study, first the courses administered in the classroom by the student teachers were videorecorded by themselves for the pretest and these were their first teaching experiences. They were allowed to make video recordings only after they were provided with necessary explanations about appropriate video recording. The student teachers were not provided with feedback regarding their course preparations and teaching during the course. The advisor was not present in the classroom during these recordings. Firstly, the recorded classes were watched and TSOF was filled for each student teacher by the advisor. Then, individual feedbacks were given for each student teacher by the advisor. After all feedbacks were given, the recording of the second classes were demanded for the posttest. As in the pretest stage, the second recordings were watched and TSOF was filled for each student teacher by the advisor for posttest (Table 1). Giving Feedbacks of Performance The feedbacks concerning the first classes of each student teacher are individual feedbacks. In this scope, the advisor first watched the recordings herself and filled in TSOF. Then, she gave feedbacks by analyzing the TSOF to each student teacher while watching their first class recordings together. The items over TSOF that were done correctly by the student teacher reinforced by emphasizing. Regarding the items that were not done

Analyzing of Data

Interobserver Reliability Inter-observer agreement data were collected on 30% each of the first and second classes videos. Interobserver reliability was calculated by the number of agreements dividing by the total number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100 (Cooper et. al., 1987; Erbas, 2012). As a result of the calculations using this formula, the value of inter-observer reliability of the researchers was found as 92.6% for the first classes videos. Then the advisor gave feedbacks and second videos were demanded from the each student teachers. The value of inter-observer reliability of the second classes was found as 89.2%.

Table 2. Normality Test Kolmogorov-Smirnova

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic

df

p

Statistic

Df

p

OBSERVATION1

.209

11

.193

.830

11

.023

OBSERVATION2

.139

11

.200*

.950

11

.649

European Journal of Educational Research 113 Social Validation In the scope of the social validity of the study, a subjective assessment was made by asking open-ended questions to the student teachers involved in the study by which they could state their views on the results of the study (Kurt, 2012). The student teachers were asked, “What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of providing feedback based on video recordings subsequent to your classes rather than by immediate feedback of the advisor that is present in the classroom?” The student teachers emphasized the advantages as lessened thrill and thus acting comfortably during the teaching, being able to control the classroom by feeling independent, and working in a more comfortable collaboration with the co-trainees. They pointed out the disadvantages as technical problems with the cameras might impair the flow of the class and that despite they could establish appropriate communication with students in some classes, the advisor might fail to notice their skills since it was difficult to understand the classroom atmosphere via video-recordings. Findings / Results This study, which aimed to investigate the effect of PF on the development of teaching skills, based on the assessments of the video-recordings of the classes given by student teachers by using TSOF. Wilcoxon signed-rank, which was used to test the aim stated above was provided in Table 3. The results of the analysis indicated that the median posttest ranks (median=82) were statistically significantly higher than the median pre-test ranks (median= 68.4), Z= -2.49, p